4 ms·
I hate that the word “conspiracy” is now lobbed at others to immediately invalidate what they have to say, even with evidence. Did you skim through Bogan’s op-
by tempsy 7y ago
I hate that the word “conspiracy” is now lobbed at others to immediately invalidate what they have to say, even with evidence.
Did you skim through Bogan’s op-ed? He references the study without ever mentioning once that he played a role in it (no matter how small it was).
You don’t need a tin foil hat to ask yourself what incentives a hedge fund manager would have in downplaying the severity of the virus by participating in the creation and media distribution of a study that does exactly that.
- tbenst 7y agoWe all gain more insight by discussing the study’s or analysis’s flaws, and improving future studies. I learned nothing of interest scientifically from the discussion of Bogan. Attack the substance, not the author.
- tempsy 7y agoThe author provides an insight into the motive for the study. If these authors decided to come together to do this study with the intention of downplaying the lethality of the virus then it poses a very serious ethics violation. Stanford should investigate.
- mieses 7y agoIs it wrong to have a theory that the virus is less lethal than widely assumed and to investigate this theory? Are scientists not allowed to investigate theories that are contrary to dominant political or religious dogma? What if they end up being right?